This past weekend, I watched 2 videos. One was a reaction to the Movie "Supersize Me", by Morgan Spurlock. It was called "Fat Head" and was made by and starred Tom Naughton, a comedian whose catch phrase in the film was "follow the money" (in reference to vegetarian lobbyists influencing government policy). He could not understand how Spurlock gained all the weight he did and got his cholesterol to sky-rocket on a 30-day McDonald's diet. He defended the fast food chain, claiming that no one forces anyone to eat anything they don't want to there (I have to agree with that part!). He also set out to prove that he, too, could eat 3 meals a day of fast food and lose weight and lower his cholesterol, which he did. In fact, he did so on a high-fat, primarily meat-based diet. But he also walked several miles a day 6 days a week, kept calories below 2,000 per day, and eliminated most carbohydrates. Basically, he went on a fast-food Atkins diet. We all know that the Atkins diet does result in weight loss, so there should be no surprise there. And doubling your daily exercise is guaranteed to have positive results. He "could not understand" how Spurlock gained so much weight. Well, Spurlock did not exercise, ate his fries, and did not throw away the hamburger buns. He also did not order diet cokes. He ate what most people who go to fast food restaurants eat. How many of your kids out there throw away the buns and say no to the fries that come with their meals?
My biggest problem with Naughton's film, however, was his constant assertion that lobbyists pushing for vegetarianism have influenced public policy. Over the past 6 years, the opposite has been true. Compare the old Food Pyramid to the new one and you'll see what I mean. What used to be bottom heavy on grains is now heavier on the animal-based combination of meats/dairy. His catch-phrase "follow the money" is correct. But the money now appears to come from the meat and dairy lobbyists, not the CSPI. I looked up what the CSPI is doing these days and it is pretty much pushing for Nutrition labeling, including on fast foods. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
As for the Rave Diet, by Mike Anderson, it is a 100% plant-based diet, which also eliminates vegetable oils, keeping overall fats way down. Like Naughton, Anderson blames the government for following the money. But the money he believes they are following comes from the meat and dairy lobbyists. I have to side with Anderson on this point...
Both men claim that their diets are heart-healthy and both had testimonies to "prove" their point. I do wonder what the long-term cardiac affects of the Atkins Diet will be. If a person has inflammation in their arteries and follows such a diet for too long, I just can't see it continuing to be "heart-healthy".
Of the two diets, only the Rave Diet claims to also be a cancer-prevention diet. Anderson states that the cure for cancer is a strong immune system (I agree) and that the current treatments (chemotherapy and radiation) destroy it (this has always troubled me). Anderson says that plant foods are the only foods that strengthen the immune system. In fact, Richard Cutler of the National Health Institute was quoted as saying, "the amount of antioxidants you maintain in your body is directly proportional to how long you will live." In researching immune-boosting foods a while back, I came up with a similar conclusion. In fact, the first thing I had in my notes was to "eat less protein, especially from animal sources, since such protein residues can irritate the immune system". Anderson had several cancer patients give testimonies of having cured their disease on a 100% plant-based diet. This was compelling. If you see my posts on an Anti-Cancer diet (especially 2/8 and 2/10/11), you will see that antioxidants play an important part in helping to stave off cancer, so there is something to Anderson's claims, since the number one way to get antioxidants is with fruits and vegetables. But I confess that I am not yet at the point where I can honestly tell someone to buck conventional cancer treatment for a plant-based diet. For one thing, as Anderson even noted, as soon as people went back to eating meat, their symptoms returned. How can I make sure someone is really sticking to the diet?
One of the issues that actually made me chuckle was both men's claims about what humans were "meant" to eat, as well as the negative affects of eating what we weren't meant to. Naughton interviews a doctor who claims that he tried a vegetarian diet for 9 years and "lost strength". And that the Pritikin diet made him depressed. Anderson states that a meat-based Atkins diet has a toxic reaction on people, enhancing their chances of later contracting cancer. Moreover, he states that after being on the Atkins diet for a year, there is an average reduction of blood flow to the heart of 40%. I have to agree with Anderson on the cancer point. A high-fat diet is dangerous for people who have, have had, or are predisposed to, in particular, the hormone-driven and digestive-system cancers. As for the Atkins diet reducing blood flow to the heart...I don't know how one comes up with that statistic exactly, but I do know that the Atkins diet should not be a long-term one. It is unbalanced, for one thing, and way too high in fat for another. I could only understand (but still not condone) someone going on it for quick weight loss. Although I do not completely agree with all of Anderson's assertions either, such as his problem with our best sources of Omega-3's, overall, his dietary approach is a much healthier one than a long-term "stage-one" Atkins diet.
If you get a chance to see it, "Fat Head" is on Netflix Instant Cue. And you should be able to find Tom Anderson's "the Rave Diet" at your public library. I hope these past few posts have helped you to understand why there is so much conflicting dietary advice out there. Hang in there! I'll help you sort it out. All you have to do is ask - that's what I'm here for. Until next time, happy and healthy eating!
No comments:
Post a Comment